From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4C3FC47089 for ; Thu, 27 May 2021 12:51:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9554C6109F for ; Thu, 27 May 2021 12:51:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235845AbhE0Mx0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 May 2021 08:53:26 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:26172 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235872AbhE0MxW (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 May 2021 08:53:22 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1622119907; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=kReLMtA10wz94SJ+BJK20uccxvZmpsnt3NmAhShbr1Y=; b=TtBE1XaGJBF+HHYrpe31aQaY7l2eggvcFeu/XEkYzrEEtrfd1d8Ua/TEKhss5Y+YE+UnOB Sp8yLXMX3KX9+gaJYBqDgON8pnDF6GwaBRUwk9IjGcVTXRuwfiT4RUC0TH4Lx/40+Jx08A wwpTJvs6xueIaHN2bt7WOsvryGduM+s= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-499-oR5AeFYkMmicgg_DLeefFg-1; Thu, 27 May 2021 08:51:45 -0400 X-MC-Unique: oR5AeFYkMmicgg_DLeefFg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B3988042B7 for ; Thu, 27 May 2021 12:51:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from madhat.boston.devel.redhat.com (ovpn-112-214.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.112.214]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5607219C66; Thu, 27 May 2021 12:51:44 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [nfs-utils RFC PATCH 2/2] gssd: add timeout for upcall threads To: Scott Mayhew Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org References: <20210525180033.200404-1-smayhew@redhat.com> <20210525180033.200404-3-smayhew@redhat.com> <490b45eb-0142-24de-e05f-79751891ddf9@RedHat.com> From: Steve Dickson Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 08:54:41 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org On 5/27/21 7:40 AM, Scott Mayhew wrote: > On Wed, 26 May 2021, Steve Dickson wrote: >> If people are going to used the -C flag they are saying they want >> to ignore hung threads so I'm thinking with printerr(0) we would >> be filling up their logs about messages they don't care about. >> So I'm thinking we should change this to a printerr(1) > > Note that message could pop multiple times per thread even without the > -C flag because cancellation isn't immediate (a thread needs to hit a > cancellation point, which it won't actually do that until it comes back > from wherever it's hanging). My thinking was leaving it with > printerr(0) would make it blatantly obvious when something was wrong and > needed to be investigated. I have no issue with changing it to > printerr(1) though. It would... but I've craft the debugging for a single -v is errors only... Maybe I should mention that in the man page... And looking at what you mention in the man page for -C, it does say it will cause an error to be logged... So I guess it makes sense to leave it as is. > > Alternatively we could add another flag to struct upcall_thread_info to > ensure that message only gets logged once per thread. > I think it is good as is... >> >> Overall I think the code is very well written with >> one exception... The lack of comments. I think it >> would be very useful to let the reader know what >> you are doing and why.... But by no means is >> that a show stopper. Nice work! > > I can go back and add some comments. Well there aren't that many comments to begin with.... So you are just following the format... ;-) Don't worry about it... How I will finish my testing today... and do the commit with what we got.. Again... Nice work!! steved.